5 ms·

1.3M signatures to grant government power it shouldn't be granted. It's good that it failed. Stop giving money to proprietary software if you have a problem wit

by kgwxd 4mo ago

1.3M signatures to grant government power it shouldn't be granted. It's good that it failed. Stop giving money to proprietary software if you have a problem with the arrangement.

dlahoda 4mo ago
nice idea. Like, 1. Let make cocaine legal to sell 2. Say to people 'Stop giving money to drug deallers if you have a problem with the arrangement.'
skotobaza 4mo ago
> to grant government power it shouldn't be granted What power? Power to save games from becoming unplayable on the whim?
- akramachamarei 4mo ago
  Power to say "that product you are selling is not okay with me! If the customer is willing to buy, it must be because you have deceived him. We cannot trust customers to buy games on their own, they need help from the state to do that!" Shall I go on? CU: I consent. GD: I consent. EU: Isn't there someone you forgot to ask? "Oh, won't someone think of the gamers?"
  - skotobaza 4mo ago
    The initiative is not about telling which games customers can and cannot buy, it's about customers getting to play a game they paid for without the fear of it becoming bricked after the publisher stops supporting it.
    - akramachamarei 4mo ago
      This is equivalent to the government making certain kinds of contracts unlawful. It's the same kind of situation as in prostitution and illicit drug markets. The government claims that certain kinds of agreements should simply not be available to customers and sellers. This is not the government's business.
      - throwaway85825 4mo ago
        Real lolbertarianism has never been tried. Maybe in somalia.
      - skotobaza 4mo ago
        But nobody is trying to block "certain kinds of agreements". You can still make whatever games you could make before. Nothing changes in that regard.
        akramachamarei 4mo ago
        I think that is literally what SKG is doing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that game companies often create games and sell them (i.e. sell licenses), and the terms of those licenses include some degree of revocability and nonguarantees of continued function—which I don't like, btw. Nonetheless, customers buy these games, agree to these licenses, having attentatively read those terms or not. It's a bit of inference on my part, but here's my bottom line: the conduct SKG is lobbying against is permitted by the contracts which game sellers and customers have agreed to, presumably. Otherwise, a smart instantiation of the SKG idea would be bringing class actions for breaches of contract, I guess? So I agree, nobody is trying to block people from making games certain ways, including in this sort of Mission Impossible tape way. That would be weird and draconian to outlaw. But I don't know how to interpret SKG other than to be outlawing the sale of such revocable/spontaneously self-destructing game services, which is to say outlawing the contracting between customers and sellers to exchange money for services usable under such terms. I think a specimen case would be useful to understand. The infamous one seems to be The Crew. Presumably SKG would seek to outlaw something about the conduct of Ubisoft there, presumably the revocation or destruction of the service. Equally presumably, the right to revocation was in the terms that everyone signed. So either, the law trumps the contract, or the contract was unlawful in the first place. This effectively forbids some kinds of contract. Anyway, that's just my interpretation, so if I'm thinking stupid, I hope my thoughts are laid bare, and that I have not lost your patience, so that you may poke out my errors.
        skotobaza 4mo ago

by kgwxd 4mo ago

1.3M signatures to grant government power it shouldn't be granted. It's good that it failed. Stop giving money to proprietary software if you have a problem with the arrangement.

dlahoda 4mo ago

nice idea. Like, 1. Let make cocaine legal to sell 2. Say to people 'Stop giving money to drug deallers if you have a problem with the arrangement.'

skotobaza 4mo ago

> to grant government power it shouldn't be granted What power? Power to save games from becoming unplayable on the whim?

akramachamarei 4mo ago
Power to say "that product you are selling is not okay with me! If the customer is willing to buy, it must be because you have deceived him. We cannot trust customers to buy games on their own, they need help from the state to do that!" Shall I go on? CU: I consent. GD: I consent. EU: Isn't there someone you forgot to ask? "Oh, won't someone think of the gamers?"
- skotobaza 4mo ago
  The initiative is not about telling which games customers can and cannot buy, it's about customers getting to play a game they paid for without the fear of it becoming bricked after the publisher stops supporting it.
  - akramachamarei 4mo ago
    This is equivalent to the government making certain kinds of contracts unlawful. It's the same kind of situation as in prostitution and illicit drug markets. The government claims that certain kinds of agreements should simply not be available to customers and sellers. This is not the government's business.
    - throwaway85825 4mo ago
      Real lolbertarianism has never been tried. Maybe in somalia.
    - skotobaza 4mo ago
      But nobody is trying to block "certain kinds of agreements". You can still make whatever games you could make before. Nothing changes in that regard.
      - akramachamarei 4mo ago
        I think that is literally what SKG is doing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that game companies often create games and sell them (i.e. sell licenses), and the terms of those licenses include some degree of revocability and nonguarantees of continued function—which I don't like, btw. Nonetheless, customers buy these games, agree to these licenses, having attentatively read those terms or not. It's a bit of inference on my part, but here's my bottom line: the conduct SKG is lobbying against is permitted by the contracts which game sellers and customers have agreed to, presumably. Otherwise, a smart instantiation of the SKG idea would be bringing class actions for breaches of contract, I guess? So I agree, nobody is trying to block people from making games certain ways, including in this sort of Mission Impossible tape way. That would be weird and draconian to outlaw. But I don't know how to interpret SKG other than to be outlawing the sale of such revocable/spontaneously self-destructing game services, which is to say outlawing the contracting between customers and sellers to exchange money for services usable under such terms. I think a specimen case would be useful to understand. The infamous one seems to be The Crew. Presumably SKG would seek to outlaw something about the conduct of Ubisoft there, presumably the revocation or destruction of the service. Equally presumably, the right to revocation was in the terms that everyone signed. So either, the law trumps the contract, or the contract was unlawful in the first place. This effectively forbids some kinds of contract. Anyway, that's just my interpretation, so if I'm thinking stupid, I hope my thoughts are laid bare, and that I have not lost your patience, so that you may poke out my errors.
        skotobaza 4mo ago